You just have to wonder what the GOP endgame is here. Is it that rape/abortion has become such a big ditch that they are compelled to keep digging with hopes on settling on the right answer, but (double drat!) what they’ve ended up with is such a continuing cycle of ignorance, offensiveness, and smug assholery that they’ve really got no clue how to stop looking for the saving grace as desperation sets in? It would sure seem that way.
Maybe the goal is to burden us all with so much rape/abortion-related inanity that we just become so overloaded that their comments no longer register. Call it rape fatigue or rape desensitization — either way — could this be what they’re hoping for ultimately?
We ask these questions because every time Republicans open their mouths about rape it proves to be more and more shocking the level of disconnect in accordance with the asinine, ridiculous notions that come out of the floodgates.
This latest round of right wing nutbag commentary on abortion began with Paul Ryan referring to rape as a “method of conception” as if it were no more significant than artificial insemination or unprotected sex. He didn’t talk about the violence in nature or the impact it has on the victim, or the brutality and cruelty of the act especially if it results in a pregnancy. The way he makes it sound it’s like, “Oh, well, you know. It’s just one more way a woman can get pregnant.” He didn’t condemn it or the perpetrator.
It’s as if the conception is no less miraculous and beguiling than virgin births or miracle conceptions, which leads us to very stark imagery. Does the GOP view women as just procreation vessels? Is the sole worth of women dictated by live births — and is it their duty to cede control of their bodies and minds to their male counterparts with absolutely no say in what goes in or comes out of their bodies — not even at the expense of their very own lives? Is what these men say, who believe it is their doctrine to dictate, is what shall be?
Yes, so says Pennsylvania Republican Senate candidate Tom Smith who equates rape to having a child out of wedlock.
“How would you tell a daughter or a granddaughter who, God forbid, would be the victim of a rape, to keep the child against her own will?” Smith replied, “I lived something similar to that with my own family. She chose life, and I commend her for that. She knew my views. But, fortunately for me, I didn’t have to. She chose the way I thought. No, don’t get me wrong, it wasn’t rape.” What was it, then? His daughter had “a baby out of wedlock.” Asked if that was similar to rape, Smith stammered, “No, no, no, but … put yourself in a father’s situation, yes. It is similar. But, back to the original, I’m pro-life, period.”
Oh, the shame that is brought upon the father for the daughter to find herself in the family way out of wedlock. It is indeed like a rape. It is raping the father of his right of having a pure daughter, right, Tom? Is this the way it’s like rape? In this instance she is forever sullied as if she were raped. Oh what has she wrought by this act of defiance.
And we’re still on just Monday of this week.
By early Tuesday Paul Ryan, not to be outdone, was back front and center with yet another explanation/denigration of the word rape as to reduce its meaning and chalk it up to just another talking point, or bit of political flotsam and fodder that has no real impact on the many women who are affected rendering their experiences meaningless.
Appearing on Fox News Ryan said:
Asked on Fox about having supported legislation that referred to rape as “forcible rape” Monday, Ryan said that was “stock language” that has been used in many bills.
“Look, all these bills were bills to stop taxpayer financing of abortion. Most Americans agree with us, including pro-choice Americans – that we shouldn’t use hardworking taxpayer dollars to finance abortion,” the Wisconsin lawmaker told Bret Baier.
“Rape is rape, period,” he said, repeating a phrase he has uttered many times since last week. “This is language that was stock language used for lots of different bills, bills I didn’t author. And that language was removed to be very clear and I agree with that. Removing that language so that we are very clear. Rape is rape. Period. End of story.”
So, basically, this “stock language” in the use of the term “forcible rape” was something that meant very little to Ryan. He didn’t think about it when he agreed to cosponsor the measure. It was just some “whatever” wording used to describe the means to an end for denying women abortions. Or he’s completely full of shit and distancing himself from the abhorrent term “forcible rape” by cavalierly claiming it was “stock language” as a way out of the abortion ditch.
Image: Time Magazine, John Cole
